Western campaign of Subedei and Jebe: Battle of Kalka

Battle of Kalka

В previous article we talked about the western campaign of the tumens Subedei and Jebe, the initial goal of which was to search for Khorezmshah Muhammad II. After his death, they, bypassing the Caspian Sea from the south, moved north, defeating the troops of the Georgian king George IV (son of the famous Queen Tamara, died in battle on January 18, 1223), Lezgins, Alans and inflicting a crushing defeat on the Kipchaks near the Don River. Pursuing them, they went to the steppes of the Southern Black Sea region and to the Crimea.

Mongol army. Miniature from the “Collection of Chronicles” of Rashid ad-din. 1301–1314

Part of the Kipchaks, led by Khan Kotyan, retreated to the borders of the Russian principalities. They were well known in Rus' under the name Polovtsy. According to the most common and reliable version, they were named so because of their characteristic straw-yellow hair color (from the word “polova” - straw). By the way, the Byzantine name “Cumans” comes from an adjective meaning pale yellow color.

A Polovtsian from a burial near the village of Kvashnikovo, reconstruction by G. V. Lebedinskaya - head of the Laboratory of Plastic Reconstruction of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences), author of the methodological manual “Face Reconstruction from the Skull”

However, some argue that the newcomers were originally called “Onopolites” or “Onopolites” - that is, people from the other half of the land, lying beyond the left bank of the Dnieper. And in Hungary the Kipchaks were known as Kuns.

The Polovtsians appeared in Rus' in 1055 (a year after the death of Yaroslav the Wise), and their first raid on the Russian lands was recorded in 1060. The Polovtsians turned out to be restless neighbors, but not too dangerous, since they did not know how to storm cities. They posed the greatest danger as allies of some prince, who invited them to go on campaigns to the land of their neighbors and relatives.

The union of Russian princes and Polovtsian khans was traditionally sealed by the marriage of their children. As we remember, the mother of Andrei Bogolyubsky was a Polovtsian - and therefore M. Gerasimov, in his scandalous reconstruction of 1941, portrayed this Russian prince as a Mongol. This is what Andrei Bogolyubsky looks like on the correct reconstruction by V. N. Zvyagin (Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Forensic Personal Identification of the Russian Center for Forensic Medical Examination of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation):

Graphic reconstruction of the appearance of Andrei Bogolyubsky (left) and checking the correspondence of the graphic image to the skull (right) according to V. Zvyagin

“The results of a computer analysis of the measuring features of Andrei Bogolyubsky’s skull using the CranioMetr program... the appearance of Andrei Bogolyubsky belongs to the Central European version of the large Caucasoid race... the assumption that Prince Andrei could have Mongoloid features similar to those recorded among the indigenous Caucasian population of the Volga region (Tatars, Chuvash , Bashkirs) and Central Asia (Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkmen) is completely excluded...

The reason for the transformation of a Caucasian skull, gravitating toward “Nordic forms,” into a “Mongoloid facial character” in the sculptural reconstruction of M. M. Gerasimov is not entirely clear. Perhaps, when working on the bust of the prince, Gerasimov wanted to draw attention to his Russian-Polovtsian origin. In those years, it was mistakenly believed that the Mongoloid racial type was dominant among the Cumans.”

In general, very soon almost all Russian princes became relatives of the Polovtsian khans. The famous Konchak also gave his daughter in marriage to his son, Prince Igor, who was captured by him. And the daughter of Khan Kotyan became the wife of the Galician prince Mstislav Udatny.

Khan Kotyan presents gifts to Mstislav Udatny. Miniature of the Facial Chronicle Code

First meeting between Russians and Mongols

The official version of those events says that the Polovtsian Khan Kotyan turned to the Russian princes for help with the words:

“Our Tatars have taken our land now, and yours will be taken tomorrow, protect us; if you don’t help us, then we will be killed today, and you will be killed tomorrow. ”

He was also supported by his son-in-law, Mstislav Udatny, who told the Russian princes gathered for the council:

“If we, brothers, do not help them, then they will surrender to the Tatars, and then they will have even more strength.”

However, we know that Subedei and Jebe did not have the task of conquering the Polovtsian lands, and they did not plan to stay in the Black Sea steppes. And they certainly weren’t going to take Russian cities by storm. Nevertheless, when reading the documents, one gets the impression that the Mongols are literally standing on the border of Russian lands, a clash with them is inevitable, the only question is where it will take place. And therefore the Russian princes make a forced decision:

“It is better for us to accept them (the Mongols) on foreign soil than on our own.”

In general, everything is simple, clear and logical - and at the same time completely wrong.

The fact is that the Mongols at the time of Kotyan’s arrival were very far from the Russian borders - they fought in the Crimea and the Black Sea steppes. And Mstislav’s father-in-law, who called for unification to fight foreigners, actually deserted from that war - he left on his own and took with him about 20 thousand soldiers. The comrades he left behind already had little chance of success, but now they were doomed to inevitable defeat.

And Kotyan is really trying to create an anti-Mongol alliance - but, apparently, not defensive, but offensive. He either deceived the Russian princes: by exaggerating his colors extremely, he convinced them that the danger was real and the invasion of the “wild Mongols” was inevitable. Or, on the contrary, with a story about the weakness of strangers, he seduced them with the opportunity to easily defeat them and take away rich booty.

Judging by the carelessness of the movement of the troops of the Russian squads and the adventurous beginning of the battle, into which Mstislav Udatny got involved without waiting for other princes (let us note, by the way, that Udatny is not a daredevil, but only a lucky one), it is the second assumption that may turn out to be correct.

Soon the Mongol ambassadors appeared and declared:

“We heard that you were going against us, obeying the Polovtsy, but we did not occupy your land, neither your cities, nor villages, came to you; we came by God's permission to our servants and grooms, to filthy Polovtsy, but we have no war with you; if the Polovtsians run to you, then you beat them from there and take their good to yourself; we heard that they are doing a lot of evil to you, because we are beating them from here. ”

Mstislav Udatny and Kotyan seemed to be very afraid that the Mongols would leave without entering the battle, and therefore the ambassadors were killed. The Polovtsians already knew that the Mongols did not forgive this and by killing the ambassadors they deliberately provoked them into battle - again, hoping for an easy victory over them.

The situation was aggravated by the fact that one of Subedei’s two sons, Chambek, was part of that embassy, ​​and now the Russian princes became the bloodlines of the temnik. Since reconciliation was now impossible, no one laid a finger on the Mongols of the second embassy, ​​although their speeches were much more militant:

“You listened to the Polovtsy and killed our ambassadors; now go to us, well, go; we didn’t touch you: God is above all of us.”

With what forces did the Russian princes oppose the Mongols?

The squads of the Kyiv, Chernigov, Smolensk, Galicia-Volyn, Kursk, Putivl and Trubchev principalities went on a campaign. They did not wait for the detachment of the Vladimir Principality, which was led by Vasilko of Rostov - he only managed to reach Chernigov, where he received news of the defeat on Kalka.

But even without the Vladimirs, the total number of the Russian army reached 30 thousand people; it was joined by 20 thousand Polovtsians, who were led by the Przemysl thousand Yarun - the governor of Mstislav Udatny. The Brodniki (who later went over to the side of the Mongols) also joined the Russian-Polovtsian army.

Such a persistent desire to definitely fight the Mongols becomes understandable: both Kotyan and the Russian princes were confident that, having such a significant advantage in strength, they would easily defeat the tumens of Subedei and Jebe, who had already suffered losses.

However, the Russian squads did not have a common command, and the two most authoritative princes, Mstislav of Kiev and Mstislav of Galitsky, thought more about how all the glory and spoils would not go to their rival. It seems that they did not even imagine joint actions. As a result, at the decisive moment on May 31, 1223, their troops found themselves on different banks of the Kalka River.

N. Fomin. “Three Mstislavs” (“Before the Battle of Kalka”)

At the forefront of the allied army were the Polovtsians and the troops of Mstislav Udatny. The Mongols, following their favorite tactics, retreated, leading the enemy troops with them, constantly disturbing them and exhausting them with constant small skirmishes.

Mongol horseman, 14th-century Persian miniature

This behavior strengthened Mstislav Udatny in the idea that strangers were weak and afraid to engage in battle. As a result, he apparently decided that he could do without the help of other princes, with whom he did not want to share either glory or spoils.

It must be said that the Mongols also suffered losses during this retreat: as we remember, it was suggested that the experienced commander Jebe was killed in one of the rearguard battles.

However, they achieved the strategic goal: the tired Russian army, stretched for many miles, was brought to the right place, the Russian commander who was considered the most successful was disoriented and entered the battle without waiting for other squads to approach.

A. Yvon. Lithograph “Battle of Kalka”

Battle of Kalka

The feigned retreat of the Mongols lasted 12 days. The largest clash is described in the Ipatiev Chronicle:

“Then Prince Mstislav of Galich forded the Dnieper with 1 people, attacked the Tatar guards and defeated them, and the rest of them fled, and there was no help for them. Hearing this, the Russian princes all went beyond the Dnieper on many boats... And they stood at the ford near the Dnieper near Khortitsa. And news came to the Russian camps that the Tatars had come to inspect the Russian boats. Hearing this, Daniil Romanovich and those who were with him mounted a horse, and many other princes rushed to see the Tatar army... And all the people and princes crossed the Dnieper River, and went on horseback to the Polovtsian field, and met the Tatars. The Russian regiments and riflemen defeated them and drove them far into the field, cutting them down, and took their cattle and herds so that there was enough for all the soldiers.”

Finally, on May 31, 1223, Mstislav Udatny saw Mongol troops ready for battle and, fearing that they would retreat again, attacked them on May 31, 1223, without even warning the other princes about it.

This famous battle is described in 22 Russian chronicles, and is everywhere called the “battle of Kalki.” It probably happened not on one, but on several nearby small rivers.

There is still debate about where exactly this battle took place. The area near the Karatysh, Kalmius and Kalchik rivers is named as a possible location. And in the chronicle “Yuan Shi” Kalka is called the Alitzi River.

According to the Sofia Chronicle, at the first stage of the battle, the Russians overthrew a small Mongol detachment near some river Kalka. At the same time, Mstislav’s warriors captured an enemy centurion, who was handed over to the Polovtsians for reprisals. Perhaps it was he who was mentioned in the first article by the Hungarian historian Stephen Pou who mistook him for Jebe. Then the Russian detachments under the command of Mstislav Galitsky found themselves at another Kalka and, without coordinating their actions with other participants in the campaign, crossed to the other side.

Mstislav Udatny and his son-in-law Daniil Romanovich on the banks of the Kalka, miniature from the Front Chronicle Vault

And the Kiev prince Mstislav the Old and his two sons-in-law began to set up a camp on the opposite bank.

Mstislav Romanovich Old, mosaic at the Golden Gate metro station, Kyiv

Here is how the Ipatiev Chronicle tells about further events:

“Mstislav Mstislavich ordered Daniil to cross the Kalka River with his regiments and other regiments with him. And after them he crossed and went beyond the Kalka River. And he sent Yarun with the Polovtsian regiments to the guard, and he hastily went after him... Daniil rode forward and crashed into the Tatar regiments... The Tatars fled, and Daniil beat them with his regiment. And Oleg Kursky fought hard. Then Yarun and other Polovtsian regiments set out, wanting to fight.”

Acting separately from other units, the troops of Mstislav Udatny, Daniil Volynsky, horsemen of the Chernigov principality and Polovtsians attacked the Mongol vanguard, which, having retreated, brought them under attack from reserve detachments of plate cavalry.

Tatar armored warrior, reconstruction by M. Gorelik

The Polovtsians, who had already dealt with the Mongols, fled in panic from the battlefield, crushing their Russian allies - in the Novgorod and Suzdal chronicles it is their flight that is called the reason for the defeat.

Mongolian cavalry chasing the enemy. Thumbnail from the Collection of Annals of Rashid al-Din, XIV century

However, Mstislav Udatny showed himself no better then, who fled in the front ranks and, having crossed the Dnieper with part of his squad, ordered all the boats to be chopped up and burned. His son-in-law, the Volyn prince Daniil Romanovich, the future “King of Rus'” and the father-in-law of Andrei Yaroslavich, brother of Alexander Nevsky, fled with him. About 8 thousand warriors remained on the shore, who were cut down by the Mongols of the Tumen of Subedei.

B. Chorikov. “Prince Mstislav Galitsky, having lost the battle of Kalka, escapes across the Dnieper”

Let us recall, by the way, that the famous Igor Svyatoslavich could also flee in 1185, but said:

“If we jump, we will save ourselves, and we will abandon ordinary people, and it will be a sin against us before God, betraying them, we will leave. Either we die, or we all remain alive together. ”

While the main forces of the Mongols were pursuing the defeated Russian and Polovtsian regiments and destroying them on the banks of the Dnieper, the camp of Mstislav of Kyiv was besieged by units of two commanders - Chegirkhan and Tushikhan. Of particular interest is the name of the second of them, which can be translated as “Bound” (“Hounded by shackles”). Perhaps Tushikhan was a Mongol who was captured by enemies. But it is possible that, like Jebe, he was once captured and agreed to serve Genghis Khan.

The camp of Mstislav of Kyiv held out for another three days. Successfully repelling enemy attacks, Russian soldiers suffered from hunger and thirst, and therefore their leaders seized the opportunity to negotiate decent conditions for retreat. On behalf of the Mongols, negotiations were conducted by a certain “voivode of the Brodniks” Ploskin, who kissed the cross that the Mongols “will not shed your blood.”

It must be said that the Mongols, in fact, did not shed the blood of the Russian princes: the chronicles claim that the bound captives were laid on the ground - boards were laid on top, on which a feast of the victors was arranged.

N. Koshelev. "Tatars feasting after the Battle of Kalka", 1864

But there is another version of those events, according to which the negotiations with the Russian princes were conducted not by the wanderer Ploskinia, but by the former governor (vali) of the Bulgarian city Khin Ablas (Ablas-Khin), who, having been captured in one of the Caucasian cities, was with the Mongols with 1222 years.

As we remember, the son of Subedei was part of the first Mongol embassy, ​​was killed, and this temnik became the bloodline of the Russian princes. Subedey allegedly ordered to ask: who should be executed for the death of his son - the princes or their warriors? The princes allegedly answered that they were warriors, and then Subedei turned to the warriors:

“You heard that your beks betrayed you. Leave without fear, for I will execute them myself for treason to my soldiers, and I will let you go. ”

Then, when the bound princes were placed under the wooden shields of the Kyiv camp, he ordered:

“Your beks wanted you to be the first to land. So trample them into the land for this. ”

And then it was the turn of the vigilantes - because

“Warriors who killed their beys should also not live.”

Thus, in the battle on Kalka and after it, up to 90% of ordinary soldiers, many boyars and from six to nine Russian princes died. The death of six princes is accurately documented: Mstislav the Old of Kyiv, Mstislav Svyatoslavich of Chernigov, Alexander Glebovich from Dubrovitsa, Izyaslav Ingvarevich from Dorogobuzh, Svyatoslav Yaroslavich from Yanovitsy, Andrei Ivanovich from Turov.

The death of Mstislav the Old led to new strife and a fierce struggle for the Kiev throne. After the victory, the Mongols moved east. But we know that the much more modest victory of the Polovtsians over the troops of Igor Svyatoslavich in 1185 ended with a blow to the Chernigov and Pereyaslavl lands.

And the Mongols in 1223 did not begin to ruin the Russian principalities that remained virtually defenseless, that is, they did not take advantage of the fruits of their victory. This can be considered proof of the thesis that Khan Kotyan deceived his allies: the Mongols in 1223 did not plan to invade Rus', the battle on Kalka was unnecessary and optional for them.

But not useless either: Genghis Khan and his closest associates learned that in the armies of the distant Uruses there were neither any miracle heroes, nor an iron structure of disciplined and well-organized squads, nor a single command.

As a result, in the spring of 1235, at the Great Kurultai, it was decided to send only 4 thousand Mongols on a western campaign against the “Arasyuts and Circassians” (Russians and residents of the North Caucasus) and “as far as the hooves of the Mongol horses will gallop” - 5 times less than there were in tumens of Subedei and Jebe.

The rest of the soldiers of Batu Khan's army were recruited from already conquered territories (10% of all combat-ready men, as well as volunteers); they were significantly inferior to the Mongols in terms of organization and discipline, and in combat training. But, as you know, in the conditions of increasing feudal fragmentation of the Russian lands, this turned out to be quite enough.

In the next article we will continue the story about the western campaign of the Tumen Subedei and Jebe, talk about the “ram battle” of the Mongols with the Volga Bulgars and the return to Genghis Khan’s headquarters.

Comments

[Cartalon]

All this chronicle news is extremely doubtful, before Kalka and after Kalka, Mstislav Udatny (by the way, luck is a much more useful characteristic than daring) acts as an experienced, talented, undaunted commander, but on Kalka he is reckless, stupid and cowardly, why would that be all of a sudden.

[staer-62]

Did this prince show his fearlessness in battles against similar Russian princes? Got it. It’s just that the whole history of ancient Rus' is constant raids on each other, and even having a common enemy did not stop this. If not for the invasion and the three-hundred-year yoke, Russia would not have been able to unite. Kyiv, for which all the princes fought, is a cursed city, a city of betrayal, meanness and lies.

[Redoubt]

Did this prince show his fearlessness in battles against similar Russian princes?

No, he drove the crusaders away from the Baltic states and subjugated it to Novgorod and drove the Hungarians out of Galich, ending the civil strife in western Rus'.
About the article.
Everything is so and everything is not so. Unfortunately, no one wants to look into the details of this key battle in Russian history. They just post well-known variations on its theme.
Yes, in a general sense, that’s pretty much how it was. But as soon as you start studying all 22 chronicles that talk about this battle, you immediately get the feeling of a slightly different picture.
I would like to note in passing this detail that is incorrect in my opinion:

troops of the Georgian king George IV (son of the famous Queen Tamara, died in battle on January 18, 1223)

If the Mongols fought in Georgia on January 18, 1223, they did not have time to reach Kalka in May of the same year. After all, they still managed to defeat the Kipchaks and Alans and also fight in the Crimea. Let me draw your attention to the fact that the Georgian army was not assembled against the Mongols, but for a crusade. But then Jebe and Subede appeared...

Yes, of course the Mongols won at Kalka and won impressively. As a result, Russian princes are declared careless and naive, but this is not so. The Mongols defeated a very strong enemy, while the Mongols retreated as much as possible and were ready to leave at any moment, but they had a chance and they used it. The Russian princes, after 12 days of campaign, were neither careless nor naive, they simply accepted the rules of the game of the steppes. All the details testify to this. Was it bad? No, the Russians expected that they would have their chance...
There is enough information in 22 chronicles to think about a lot.
Firstly. Almost all chronicles say that “the enemy is unknown, unknown, where he came from and where he went is unknown.” By the way, it is in the chronicles about the Battle of Kalka that “Chagoniz is somewhere in China” is mentioned.
Secondly and most importantly.All of Rus' gathered to fight an unknown enemy . All Rus' except Polotsk, Novgorod and Ryazan. All Rus' from Kursk to Galich, from Vitebsk to Suzdal. Once again, absolutely all of Rus', and such a gathering of troops has not happened since the time of Monomakh, and even he collected less. Even Suzdal, which is far from the steppes, sent troops. That is, putting aside all differences, all the princes - all of Rus' - gathered for the all-Russian cause. Sorry, but why are you scared? Here, for some reason, I again remember the Georgians who gathered for a crusade, but met the Mongols. Maybe a similar thing happened in Rus', but they decided to stretch their legs with the Mongols?!? Or maybe they decided to restore the Tmutarakan principality and expel the Seljuks from Crimea??
I note that Novgorod and Polotsk at that time had problems with the crusaders in the Baltic states. And Suzdal too. And in Ryazan after the congress in Isady there was complete confusion and hesitation to send troops anywhere. That's the only reason there were no troops from them. At the same time, the same Suzdal sent troops to the Baltic states (remember Prince Vyachko and Yuryev). Otherwise, all of Russia gathered in Kyiv. Just in one fell swoop. Why? Nomads unknown in Rus' could not be the target of such a gathering of princes and armies. Even the Kiev infantry went on a campaign, which makes us think seriously. Maybe Kotyan painted the enemy so that the infantry could catch up with him in the steppe? Or did Kotyan Sutoevich bribe all of Rus' at once?? This is very naive.
The Mstislavs of Kiev and Galicia were experienced commanders and politicians who had previously acted together. “Which and quarrels” were invented for them retroactively in order to justify themselves. This was the Smolensk Rostislavich clan, which then ruled Russia and essentially united it at that time.
Third. And why exactly on Kalka? The Russians, and even more so the Polovtsians of Kotyan, knew very well the tactics of the nomads and their false retreats. Therefore, after running after them in the first days, we imposed our own counterplay. They went to the steppe to the intersection of the roads, where it is easier to detect the enemy and this is right next to Kalka. At the same time, the Russians were marching across the steppe in a raid. The same Smolensk, Pereyaslav, Vitebsk contingents did not participate in the battle itself, but they were in the campaign. Tatishchev has this. Actually, the Smolensk squad remained intact, which is why the Smolensk prince Vladimir Rurikovich sat in Kyiv after the battle. Moreover, he was chosen by the townspeople...
The comment turned out to be long, sorry.
I’ll write about the campaign and the battle itself a little later in the next comment.
To the author, thank you very much for your interest in this topic.

[know]

the prince showed his fearlessness in battles against the same Russian princes

At least in the Battle of Lipitsa, which is called almost the most terrible and brutal battle in the history of Ancient Rus'.

[know]

But the most disgusting thing is that Mstislav Udatny fought heroically at Lipitsa precisely against his own people - not against the Lithuanians, crusaders or Polovtsians.

[Redoubt]

How can I say it? This whole story with Lipitsa was started by Yaroslav Vsevolodovich by organizing a famine in Novgorod. The Smolensk Rostislavich clan stood up for the Novgorodians, who, in principle, managed to calm down civil strife in Rus' by seating all the princes on the right tables. After Lipitsa, Suzdal also had to reckon with the Rostislavichs. However, Kalka undermined the efforts of the Smolensk clan and the redistribution of the principalities began again. As a result, in 1237 Rus' was significantly weakened...
And Yaroslav Vsevolodovich miraculously “disappeared” from the chronicles when there were clashes with the Tatars. What in 1223, what in 1237.

[Cartalon]

The ability to fight is either there or it’s not, it doesn’t happen that an experienced commander would start doing stupid things in adulthood if he hadn’t done this before.

[Redoubt]

"The people who acted in this case, even if they belonged to the worst commanders, were still never devoid of simple common sense and would never have allowed those absurd actions that are indiscriminately and indiscriminately attributed to them by the general public and historical criticism. Most of the representatives of the latter would be amazed if they could familiarize themselves with the immediate motives of action and, in all likelihood, would themselves submit to them, like that commander who now appears to them and is portrayed by them as almost a half-idiot"(C) Clausewitz

[Viktor Sergeev]

After Kalka, did he face a strong opponent? Fighting with your own people is one thing, but fighting with a professional army is completely different.

[Cartalon]

Are the Hungarians a weak opponent?
They were just professionals.
Mstislav Udatny spent his entire life on campaigns, and since he received such a nickname, he clearly knew how to make the right decisions.
And if he rushed at the Mongols like that, then he had good reasons.

[staer-62]

Well, they downvoted my previous comment which said that the Mongols and Genghis Khan were born on the territory of modern Russia, which means they are our ancestors. We should be proud of their victories. The Mongols showed themselves to be more noble, intelligent and courageous than all the Russian princes where lies and meanness were the main ones. These are the ancestors of today's Ukrainians and thank God that Russia chose Moscow as its capital, and not Kyiv, cursed since then by the murder of ambassadors who spoke about peace..

[Redoubt]

Participation in all victories and non-involvement in defeats is inherent in the diggers of the Black Sea, which contains a huge amount of hydrogen sulfide.
I admire the military art of the Mongols - they squeezed everything they could out of the horse archer. But I admire even more our ancestors, who were not afraid and did not give up, putting up worthy resistance and eventually subjugating the entire empire of the conquerors.

[Viktor Sergeev]

Then remove the word “Mongols” and say that in reality the Russians killed the Russians, and the division occurred as a result of the fall of the huge Russian power. A completely possible option, so unloved by historians.

[Redoubt]

Why does the term “Mongol-Tatars” interfere?? Doesn't the term "Austro-Hungary" bother you? But there were no Austro-Hungarians in nature.
The term "Mongols" in this section of history refers to the Mongol tribes of that time, and not the inhabitants of modern Mongolia. It’s funny, but the same Subedey would now be considered the same Tuvan as Shoigu. There is a monument to Subedei in Tuva.

[Dzungar]

Shoigu’s father is Tuvan, but his mother’s is unknown... Subudai was a Uriankhian, and this is a little different than a Tuvan. The Mongols of that time are the same ancestors of the present ones, just as the then Rus are the ancestors of the present Russians

[Redoubt]

I agree, upvote. So be it. I talk about this in other comments. This in no way interferes with the study of history and does not refute anything in it. As for me, the presence of Italians does not in the least interfere with the existence of Ancient Rome.

[MCmaximus]

About 30 years ago, such an article would have been leaked. Now it's just a set of cliches from the past. What 20 thousand did someone steal there? On foot? You don't have to read any further.

[Redoubt]

"Having crossed the Dnieper and captured a huge amount of cattle from the Mongols."
Interesting fact, isn't it? Back in the 17th century, the Nogai brought a huge number of horses to Moscow for sale.

[MCmaximus]

A huge number by our standards at that time. There, Mongolian youth drove herds away to feed. These boys were beaten, dispersed and the horses were stolen.

[Dzungar]

What 20 thousand did someone steal there? On foot?

On tanks, damn...

[parusnik]

Georgian king George IV (son of the famous Queen Tamara, died in battle on January 18, 1223)

Her husband was David Soslan, an Alan prince, her co-ruler. Being next to Tamara, David did a lot for the Georgian state. He lived a life rich in military battles and the fight against the enemies of Georgia. True, it was his second husband. Andrei Bogolyubsky’s first, youngest son, Yuri, did not grow together.. Georgian and Armenian sources claim he was flawed. Tamara herself broke off relations with him. What was a precedent for that time.

[VLR]

By the way, we will talk about Queen Tamara a little later.

[parusnik]

Yes, because of your love for genealogy, I mentioned, you like to build a whole chick, the son of such, the nephew of such whose grandmother was ..... And then, Queen Tamara was not the Virgin Mary, George IV, did not appear as a result of an immaculate conception.

[VLR]

Well, yes, partly the “clue” to the new plan comes from the defeat and death of Tamara’s son in the battle with the tumens Jebe and Subedei. This was the beginning of the end of the great Georgian kingdom, which reached its apogee under Queen Tamara. Why didn’t you like the indication that George IV, Tamara’s son? Few people in Russia know about him, but Tamara is known, at least from Lermontov’s poems, as well as the novel and film “12 Chairs”

[parusnik]

Why didn’t you like the indication that George IV, Tamara’s son?

Was the child supposed to have a father? I wrote about the father. By the way, David Soslan is known in Georgia, Armenia, Ossetia, and is mentioned in the folklore of these peoples. It’s a pity that the name of Queen Tamara, even you only know from Lermontov’s poems, but also the novel and film “12 Chairs”. Although it is clear that people don’t live there in the Caucasus. Why know the culture of neighboring peoples who, in your opinion, are at a lower stage of development than you.

[VLR]

You surprised me. Why did you decide to tell me about Tamara?

known from Lermontov's poems, as well as the novel and film "12 Chairs".

?
In fact, in the early 2000s, I had 2 publications about Tamara and Soslan in “paper” central magazines. I looked at them recently, was dissatisfied (in general, I’m rarely satisfied with my old works), I decided to write differently - in much more detail and much better from a literary point of view.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: parusnik

Georgian and Armenian sources claim he was flawed.

Yeah. Typical set for anathema up to bestiality

Quote: parusnik

Tamara herself broke off relations with him.

There's a really strange story there. Yuri, in a foreign country (!!!), was able to recruit supporters and almost seized power.
By the way, the son of Tamara and David Soslan, Georgy, bore the nickname Lasha (blonde), by any chance, because of his hair color?

[parusnik]

Yuri was able to recruit supporters in a foreign country (!!!)

Let’s not forget that the nobles demanded that Tamara get married and find a candidate for her. I wouldn’t say that I recruited her. Tamara wanted to get rid of the influence of the nobles and all sorts of means were used. And then during the two years of marriage the heir was never born. And after marrying Soslan, the heir appeared two years later.

[S.Z.]

Thanks to the Author, a very interesting story. The events are, of course, well-known, but they are presented in a very interesting and reasonable manner.

[know]

The bound captives were laid on the ground - boards were laid on top, on which a feast of the victors was arranged.

I remember Pushkin’s lines hurt my eyes:

Ondrej, nicknamed Yezerski,
Gave birth to Ivan and Ilya,
He went to the Pechersk Lavra.
Hence my last name
The Yezerskys are leading. Under Kalka
One of them was captured in a junkyard,
And there he was crushed like a mosquito,
The heavy backs of the Tatars;

The word “backside” seemed very inappropriate in poetry.

[Dozorny severa]

In general, everything is to the point except for the lack of withdrawal - any feudal militia was always defeated during a clash with an organized enemy - the Mongols, Taborites, Mamluks, Swiss, English and Spanish infantry.
Hence the moral - the Russian princes were ordinary representatives of the feudal class, and it was inappropriate to glorify them.
The usual scum that hired foreigners to rob Russian neighbors just like them, abandoned their warriors and killed ambassadors. Feudal lords behaved the same way in other countries - just remember Charles the Bold, who ordered the execution of Harold (ambassador-messenger) of the Flemings.

[gsev]

Quote: Dozorny severa

The usual scum that hired foreigners to rob Russian neighbors just like them, abandoned their soldiers and killed ambassadors.

The Spartans and Athenians also killed the Persian ambassadors when they demanded that Hellas submit. Probably in some cases, the murder of an ambassador who came with a vile proposal is a sign of inflexibility that the war will be a life-or-death affair. Hitler just recently waged a war against the Jews and Gypsies for their complete destruction. Hamas is adamant in its sacred right to rape Jewish women and kill Jews with impunity. Zelensky and Kolomoisky surpassed Hitler and Rosenberg and set out, together with the Baltic Limatrophs, to ban the Russian language. The world is probably truly entering an era of the bloodiest wars in its history.

[Dozorny severa]

In general, Sparta sent two volunteers to Persia to kill the Persians, recognizing the act of killing ambassadors as a crime as compensation.
With regards to the banning of the Russian language, who but the leadership of the Russian Federation condoned these processes? The Russian Federation actually maintains these regimes to this day. So ask questions to the President of the Russian Federation.

[gsev]

Quote: Dozorny severa

With regards to the ban on the Russian language, who but the leadership of the Russian Federation condoned these processes?

In Russia there is no ban on Finnish, Chechen or Afghan culture. Until 2014, Putin refrained from any interference in the internal affairs of Armenia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, or the Baltic states, although in all countries the Russian population was spread rot and nationally oppressed. It’s just that in Ukraine, the US State Department authorized the massacres of the Russian intelligentsia in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine so that the Russians who fled from Ukraine would accuse Putin of treason and contribute to his overthrow by pro-American politicians who would drag Russia into an acute military-political confrontation with the PRC. Of the two evils of war with China and NATO, Putin chose the lesser evil—war with NATO. Although Putin’s goal was the peaceful development of Russia without participating in wars for interests alien to it.

[Redoubt]

One always forgets how Batu ordered to kill the Ryazan embassy.
And in fact, in this topic, Subudai and Jebe guaranteed the Polovtsians immunity if they abandoned the Alans and immediately attacked them.
So there is no point in reproaching Russian feudal lords with etiquette. Tales about ambassadorial etiquette are a method of teaching history to schoolchildren, and not history for adults.

[Dozorny severa]

Firstly, the Mongols did not abandon their own;
secondly, it was the Polovtsians who betrayed the Alans - who pities traitors;
thirdly, the Ryazan residents were not ambassadors but petitioners, since the act of war had already taken place;
fourthly, the Russian princes were the first to kill the Mongol ambassadors;
And what does Polish etiquette have to do with it? Polish feudal lords are no better than any others.

[Seal]

However, when reading the documents, one gets the impression that

Interesting, about what documents says the author of the article? Most likely, the author either unknowingly makes a standard mistake and applies the term “documents” to narrative sources, or does it deliberately, since the term “documents” seems to give more credibility to this entire fantastic narrative.

[know]

Some people like to get clever, flaunting scientific terms on a popular science portal! "Narrative Documents"! What sources did you expect and want? War newsreels of those years?

[know]

They say that there are a lot of descendants of the Cumans in Hungary. They are called, it seems, coons, and they are quite European in appearance.

[Seal]

Quote: Redoubt

There is enough information in 22 chronicles to think about a lot.
Firstly. Almost all chronicles say that “the enemy is unknown, unknown, where he came from and where he went is unknown.” By the way, it is in the chronicles about the Battle of Kalka that “Chagoniz is somewhere in China” is mentioned.

We can start with the fact that our oldest chronicle dates back, and, mind you, officially dates back to the second half of the 14th century. That is, they were written more than 100 years after the events described. Of the 22 chronicles, 3-4 chronicles are considered more or less independent. The rest repeat what is written in the first 3-4 chronicles.
And this is your phrase "Chagoniz somewhere in China" not from the chronicles at all, but from some kind of Legend, or even from Yanchevetsky’s book.

The information contained in the Tver Chronicle is very interesting.

And other princes, moreover, were driven to the Dnieper, beaten 6: Prince Svyatoslav Kanevsky, Izyaslav Ingvarevich, Svyatoslav Shumsky, Mstislav of Chernigov with his son, Yuri Nesvizhsky, and the howl just arrived on the tenth. And Alexander Popovich was killed quickly along with seventy brave men. Prince Mstislav Mstislavich Galichsky, having run beyond the Dnieper before everyone else, ordered the boats to be burned, and others to leave the shore, fearing pursuit; and he himself barely escaped to Galich. And Volodymer Rurikovich, brother (nobody) Romanov, grandson of Rostislavl Mstislavich, sits in Kiev, June 16th. And the malice happened on the month of Maa 30, in memory of the holy martyr Eremea. The remainder of the tenth army came each to their own, and some were taken from the horse, and some from the port. And so, for our sins, God brought bewilderment into us, and countless people perished. Tatarova chased across Rus' to Svyatopolchy's Novagorod. Christians, not aware of the Tatar flattery, came out against them from the crosses, and so outnumbered them; I say that there were only 30 thousand kian bending then; and there was crying and outcry throughout the town and village. Tatarova returned from the Dnieper River, and we don’t know where they came from, and where they went. Only God knows where you will bring us for our sins and for the praise and pride of Grand Duke Mstislav Romanovich. To say that a rumor had come about these Tatars, that many lands were being captured and were approaching the Russian countries, and I told him about them; he renounced: “Dondezh is in Kiev, then along Yaiko, and along the Pontic Sea, and along the Danube River, don’t wave your saber" Then God protected Vasilka Kostantinovich, who came from the shelf to Chernigov to help. Having heard this evil that happened in Rus', he returned to his Rostov, preserved by God. [..]

First. Our soldiers were robbed by the Polovtsians. Although it seems like we just fought the Tatars together.
Second. Residents of Novgorod Seversky came out to meet the Tatars in a religious procession. Why ?
Third. When Mstislav Romanovich talks about Yaik, what river does he mean? It is unlikely that the Yaik, which flows into the Caspian Sea east of the Volga.

[Redoubt]

The rest repeat what is written in the first 3-4 chronicles.

Well, that’s great. We use this information. You are right, the chronicles were written later. There is no other. We analyze this and use this information in the absence of other information.

But this phrase of yours “Chagoniz somewhere in China” is not from the chronicles at all, but from some kind of Legend, or even from Yanchevetsky’s book.

No, this is not from a book, but from chronicles.
The Ipatiev and Suzdal Chronicles tell about the death of Genghis Khan in the campaign against the Tanguts:
“and you conquered the land of Tanogot and other countries, and then Chagoniz-kan quickly killed them” (PSRL Vol. 1. Stb. 509)
Ipatievskaya: “and you fought the land of Tanogout and in the other countries, then Chagoniz kan of their Tanogout was killed by deceiving them and then destroyed by flattery...” (PSRL T.2. Stb. 745)

The information contained in the Tver Chronicle is very interesting.

Definitely interesting. Comparing it with the rest of the information, you can understand that:
In the pursuit to the Dnieper, the princes of the Chernigov, Volyn and Kyiv regiments died. They took part in the battle and were crushed by the blow of the Mongols and the flight of the Polovtsians to the Russian camp. From the Volyn regiment, the young Daniil Galitsky and the very elderly Mstislav Nemoy survived. Oleg Kursky survived from Chernigov. It is curious that the Kiev infantry was camped above the crossing, but the Kiev cavalry managed to take part in the battle. The Galician regiment was also defeated in the battle, nevertheless Mstislav Galitsky managed to escape.
As you know, the formation of troops at that time was done in cities and principalities so that the soldiers knew each other. According to all the information, the Galician and Volyn regiments were the first to enter the battle, then the Polovtsians. The Chernigov regiments began to cross Kalka, but did not have time and were crushed at the crossing. This was the intention of the Mongols. The Kiev infantry could not help and locked themselves in the camp.

First. Our soldiers were robbed by the Polovtsians. Although it seems like we just fought the Tatars together.

These are looters. What's surprising about this? This is not the first time this has been noticed among the Polovtsians. They also plundered the cities of their Russian allies.

Second. Residents of Novgorod Seversky came out to meet the Tatars in a religious procession. Why ?

There can be any number of reasons, ranging from the personal enthusiasm of the local clergy to the honorable meeting of their warriors, who, as it turned out, did not win the battle. Or maybe the residents, considering the Tatars “evil spirits and the punishment of God,” as the chronicle says, tried to ward them off with the sign of the cross.

Third. Mstislav Romanovich, speaking about Yaik, what river does he mean?

"They allegedly say"

It is unlikely that the Yaik, which flows into the Caspian Sea east of the Volga.

Of course, Yaik at that time was not part of the sphere of influence of the capital city of Kiev. By the way, neither were the Pontic Sea and the Danube. Well, maybe Mstislav the Old imagined himself as the ancient Svyatoslav who wanted to see the capital of his possessions on the Danube, but most likely this is a late insertion into the text. This was done in order to designate historical claims to these lands, such as “from ancient times our patrimony”
But I will note one thing that many people do not notice:
At the beginning of the 13th century, the knights captured Constantinople. The entire trade of the southern Russian principalities was seriously affected by this. In fact, the famous path “from the Varangians to the Greeks” was given a long life. Kyiv, Galich and Chernigov desperately needed either an acceptable alternative or the restoration of trade in its former format. Perhaps such statements by Mstislav reflect these intentions.

[Dzungar]

At the beginning of the 13th century, the knights captured Constantinople. The entire trade of the southern Russian principalities was seriously affected by this.

and behind this the significance of Kyiv and the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” fell. But the importance of the route from the Varangians to the Volga, and further to the east, and accordingly to Zalesskaya Rus', has increased, and as a consequence - the flow of resources of all Rus' there...

[Redoubt]

and as a consequence - the flow of resources of all Rus' there...

Absolutely right. I upvote again because I’m saying the same thing. This can be tracked well if you study the details rather than come up with alternatives.
It is significant that even the Metropolitan of All Rus' left the Dnieper for the Volga at the end of the 13th century. And the church knows perfectly well where the resources are.
Dnieper trade reached a dead end. Even the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during its heyday failed to restore trade on the Dnieper. The Crusaders, having blocked the Dnieper trade of Rus', then logically suggested that Rus' convert to Catholicism. As they say, the Pope acted not only with kind words. Riga, which closed the Polotsk branch of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” was also founded by a Catholic bishop. The Northern Crusades were declared by the Pope back in 1193.
The Congress of All Princes in Kyiv looks like an all-Russian project. But then the logical question is where did all of Rus' gather in 1223? To gather troops of all principalities, and even with infantry - only to repel a detachment of unknown nomads??? It too. Moreover, the enemy did not show himself to be nuclear - as sources say, the enemy was unknown and the Russians were confident in their superiority. And why then drive all of Rus' against him, all the way from Suzdal and Smolensk to Vitebsk??
It is obvious that they wanted to solve some other problems, maybe some measures to restore the Dnieper trade. Maybe they wanted to take Crimea or restore Tmutarakan and Belaya Vezha on the Don. I’m guessing, of course, but it’s obvious that sending all of Rus' with infantry to a detachment of unknown nomads is overkill. The appearance of these nomads is only a reason for a general Russian gathering and the solution of some other problem. The fact that the nomads turned out to be difficult is another matter. But in Kyiv in 1223 they could not engage in post-knowledge due to the absence of this very post-knowledge. We know what happened next.

[Seal]

Quote: vet

Some people like to get smart

And some people like to be silly. Forgive you for the fact that it is really unknown that there is a huge distance between the terms “documentary historical source” and the term “narrative historical source”. If so, then take a textbook on source study and go ahead and study the issue.

[Seal]

Quote: Redoubt

Ipatievskaya

Two main lists of the chronicle have been preserved (Ipatievsky and Khlebnikovsky) and four derivative lists dating back to Khlebnikovsky:
Ipatievsky (Academic) list. On 307 sheets (one of the options for quoting it is according to this division). Dating to the late 1420s. In the 1809th century, this list was kept in the Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma, from which the chronicle received its name. In XNUMX, it was found in the Library of the Academy of Sciences by historiographer Nikolai Karamzin. The list is written in five handwritings, but researchers have not come to a consensus on where the chronicle was written. Currently stored in the Library of the Academy of Sciences. Everyone else is even younger.
At the same time there is a note: 18 P. Zhiroslavou.
And not “Chagoniz”, but “Chanogiz”.

Quote: Redoubt

Suzdal Chronicle

(Moscow Academic Chronicle) - the conventional name of an all-Russian chronicle collection in nature late 15th century. Known in the only list of the 80s of the 15th century (GBL, f. 173, fund. No. 236). The Suzdal Chronicle begins with the “Tale of Bygone Years” and brings the narrative up to 1418.

[Redoubt]

I don’t really understand the cavils about chronicles written much later. Well, let’s say the chronicle was written in the year of the Battle of Kalka itself. And what? It would have been written by monks who did not participate in the battle itself, who heard stories, rumors and legends about it, written tendentiously to please the prince or the church or the customer. Everything is the same. This is not a report, but a chronicle, and medieval drawings are not photographs. Of course it would be more complete in some details. But in the case of the battle on Kalka, there are not so few details in later chronicles.
We study not only the chronicles, but the entire complex of information, including the circumstances and events of that time.

[Seal]

Quote: Redoubt

At the beginning of the 13th century, the knights captured Constantinople. The entire trade of the southern Russian principalities was seriously affected by this.

Why? Or do you have trade statistics from the 12th and 13th centuries, from which it would be clear that there was a decline in trade volumes?

Quote: Redoubt

In fact, the famous path “from the Varangians to the Greeks” was given a long life

Was he really there? So did you cross the Dnieper rapids? And even on Ladoga, which is more dangerous than many seas? Or do you think that Peter Alekseevich ordered the digging of the southern Ladoga canal from that. that he has nowhere to put the money?

[Redoubt]

After the fall of Byzantium in 1204. All preferences for Russian merchants and all agreements concluded with them were cancelled. Trade passed to the Venetians. The Russian principalities could influence Byzantium through the church, but they could not influence the crusaders. In the Baltic states, which the crusaders captured at the same time, placing Riga at the mouth of the Dvina, there was approximately the same picture. As a result, all trade in the Baltic was seized by the Hansa.

Was he really there? So did you cross the Dnieper rapids? And even on Ladoga, which is more dangerous than many seas?

Of course it is dangerous, but this does not mean that there was no trade. It paid off despite the dangers. The Russians managed to come to an agreement with the Polovtsians. And the Polovtsians agreed with the Alans, as evidenced by their alliances (Polovtsian khans with princes, Alans with Polovtsians). Look how different these peoples are in life, but nevertheless they were able to ally when it was beneficial.

you believe that Pyotr Alekseevich ordered the digging of the South Ladoga Canal from that. that he has nowhere to put the money?

There are no contradictions. The Peter Canal reduced the loss of ships and goods. Made swimming more comfortable. But even before the Peter and Minich canals, Novgorod’s trade along the Baltic was flourishing. Hansa will confirm.
From Varyag to Greki this is not only from Ladoga to the Dnieper rapids. This is the main branch. There were other routes, through Pskov or Polotsk. The well-known conflicts of Polotsk with Kiev and Novgorod in the 10th-11th centuries, whose branch has priority, come from here.
At the beginning of the 13th century, the crusaders managed to capture Byzantium in the south, the Baltic states in the north and bring Dnieper trade under their control. As a result, a redistribution of thrones began along the entire Dnieper trade route.
As a result, all transit trade between northern Europe and the East through Rus' moved to the Volga. This process began under Bogolyubsky. The appearance of the Horde in this sense did not change anything, but only emphasized and recorded. Therefore, neither Novgorod nor the principalities located in the upper reaches of the Volga in the 13th century chose to pay rather than fight the Horde. The southern principalities had a different geographical location. They began to fight the Horde even under Daniil Galitsky.

[Seal]

The Polovtsians appeared in Rus' in 1055 (a year after the death of Yaroslav the Wise), and their first raid on the Russian lands was recorded in 1060.

It's fixed right there Did the author really find some kind of report from I don’t know who, maybe from the outpost to the governor, saying that the Polovtsians had appeared. Or a report from the governor of a border town in Kyiv.

At the same time, Mstislav’s warriors captured the enemy centurion

Hmm, did the Mongols (the normal Mongols who are in Mongolia and nearby) really have hundreds? Maybe there were dozens more? And, accordingly, foremen?

[Dzungar]

Hmm, did the Mongols (the normal Mongols who are in Mongolia and nearby) really have hundreds? Maybe there were dozens more? And, accordingly, foremen?

there were squads, platoons and companies. And tens and hundreds are for backward peoples.. Bgggggg..!

[running Man]

According to the most common and reliable version, they were named so because of their characteristic straw-yellow hair color (from the word “polova” - straw).

This is nonsense, invented by someone unknown (but definitely not a historian or archaeologist) - and is not at all the most widespread, much less reliable. The Polovtsians were mestizos - a mixture of Mongoloids and Caucasians, and there can be no talk of any mass straw-colored hair there. And they were called Polovtsians in Rus' from the word field - which then meant steppe. And by the way, the word full (modern Russian - captivity) comes from the same word, because during raids the steppe people always took many prisoners for subsequent sale at slave markets or ransom - this was their main booty. By the way, the Crimean Tatars were doing just that right up until the liquidation of the Crimean Khanate.

[VLR]

Yes, of course, for some, and a supporter of this version, Svetlana Aleksandrovna Pletnyova is not a historian or an archaeologist. But for others she is
the most authoritative specialist on archeology, history and culture of nomadic peoples of the Middle Ages. Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor, laureate of the USSR State Prize, founder of the school of medievalists-nomads and Caucasus scholars, participant in 30 archaeological expeditions

https://xn--80aajhqhktebqcvc2c9e6cj.xn--p1ai/individuals/%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

Many people have no time to read serious literature, I understand. But this is how I write for this audience, and not for doctors of sciences - briefly, informatively, clearly, and at the same time I try to make it easy and interesting to read. If you don’t agree with something, look at additional literature on the issue; now you don’t even need to go to the library - right on the couch.

[running Man]

I have time to read serious literature, and now I will have even more thanks to some. And I read on a variety of topics. But nowhere have I come across the version that the name Polovtsy came from the straw-yellow hair color. And it’s not surprising - after all, the Polovtsians were practically Mongoloids. There are reconstructions of the appearance of the Polovtsians. Their Mongoloid appearance is visible even on many so-called Scythian women. And in the record of the Arab historian Ibn al-Athir it is written that the Mongols in 1222, during their test campaign in Europe, faced with a united army of Alans and Polovtsians, bribed the Polovtsian khans, telling them that they were of the same blood with the Mongols and therefore there was no need for them to fight and that they promised do not touch the Polovtsians if they leave the Alans (but they deceived them). Have you seen a lot of Mongoloids with blond hair? There is indeed a corner in Altai where red-haired Mongoloids are found as a miracle of nature. Well, okay, it’s not a royal thing to think with your head. Maybe, of course, I have the wrong idea about scientists. Therefore, if you don’t mind, please tell me in which work of Svetlana Aleksandrovna Pletneva it is written about the supposed fair hair of the Polovtsians.

[running Man]

PS But the “alternatives” love this version very much and replicate it. The same ones who already call themselves scientists and say that there were no Mongols in Rus', and the ancient Greek antique coins of the Northern Black Sea region are supposedly ancient Russian.

[running Man]

*I made a reservation about “Scythian women”. I meant "Polovtsian women". The ancient Scythians and the Scythians were precisely Caucasians, although some medieval authors clearly confused the first and second.

[VLR]

Pletneva’s monograph is called “Polovtsy”. Executive editor Academician B. A. Rybakov,
Reviewer: Doctor of Historical Sciences V. L. Egorov.
And the typical appearance of a Polovtsian warrior - on the strictly scientific reconstruction given in the article (not fantasy, like almost all of Gerasimov's reconstructions) - at the very beginning of the article - was carried out by G.V. Lebedinskaya - head of the Laboratory of Plastic Reconstruction of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences ), author of the methodological manual “Facial Reconstruction from the Skull”.
The “women” you are talking about have nothing to do with the Polovtsians - the Polovtsians came to these steppes late - a year after the death of Yaroslav the Wise.

[running Man]

Pletneva’s monograph is called “Polovtsy”. Executive editor Academician B. A. Rybakov,
Reviewer: Doctor of Historical Sciences V. L. Egorov.

Thanks, be sure to read.

And the typical appearance of a Polovtsian warrior - on the strictly scientific reconstruction given in the article (not fantasy, like almost all of Gerasimov's reconstructions) - at the very beginning of the article - was carried out by G.V. Lebedinskaya - head of the Laboratory of Plastic Reconstruction of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences ), author of the methodological manual “Facial Reconstruction from the Skull”.

So the Mongoloid appearance is visible there, although of course to a lesser extent than that of the Mongols. Crossbreeding is naturally present.

The “women” you are talking about have nothing to do with the Polovtsians - the Polovtsians came to these steppes late - a year after the death of Yaroslav the Wise.

Oooh, are these Polovtsian women not related to the Polovtsians? Do not confuse with Scythian women - I myself made a reservation in the previous comment - I later corrected it. And after that you say that, unlike me, you read serious literature? So type “Polovtsian women” into your browser’s search engine and read it again. By the way, the self-name of the Polovtsians is Kipchaks - they are considered the descendants of the Huns and the ancestors of the Kazakhs, for example. “The Blonde Kipchaks” are an example of the mess that is going on in the minds of East Slavic history buffs.

[VLR]

No, Lebedinskaya’s reconstruction shows Mongoloidity, just a typical Caucasian. And in the reconstruction of Zvyagin and the explanation given just below, the skull of Andrei Bogolyubsky, whose mother was a Polovtsian, is declared to be Nordic, and his appearance to be related to the Central European version of the large Caucasoid race. And it is also indicated there that the only reason for Gerasimov’s incomprehensible distortion of the appearance of this prince may be the widespread at that time erroneous opinion about the Mongoloid nature of the Polovtsians. That is, the assumption about the Mongoloid nature of the Polovtsians is yesterday or even the day before yesterday in historical science. As for the Polovtsian women, these are very rough and poorly processed stones with unclear images of faces. On them, like on Rorschach blots, you can, if you wish, see Mongoloidity. But these are just primitive schematic and conventional images of faces; when processing the stones, there was clearly no goal to create a portrait of a specific person.

[running Man]

Quote: VlR

No, Lebedinskaya’s reconstruction shows Mongoloidity, just a typical Caucasian.

No, this is just a Mongoloid. Here's from a different angle:

[running Man]

And here is Andrei Bogolyubsky:

[running Man]

*****************************Here's something else:

[running Man]

Here is a reconstruction of another Cuman:

[running Man]

Well, and a few more “Polovtsian women”:

[running Man]

*****************************************************

[running Man]

*********************************************

[running Man]

To be honest, I am shocked that the Kipchaks - generally recognized Mongoloids - are considered by someone to be blond Caucasians

[VLR]

Well, you read the said monograph by Pletneva first. Then, maybe, you will somehow adjust your opinion. Well, or stay the same - history is still not mathematics and there are no reinforced concrete formulas in it. Therefore, there is such a range of opinions on almost every issue.

[Seal]

Quote: Redoubt

We study not only chronicles, but the whole complex of information, including the circumstances and events of that time.

Again the standard technique. You pretend that there is something else besides chronicles. Please clarify what you mean by the terms
1) "the whole complex of information"
2) “including the circumstances of that time”
3) “including the events of that time.”

Do you know what yours looks like? This is how my child, who is now quite an adult, once answered my question “What will you do there.”
Answer: “Well, we’ll just hang out, communicate, talk, exchange opinions, listen to each other.” It would seem that there are five different predicates here. But they all mean the same thing, and the child brought them only in order to somehow give weight to his future actions.
So what do you mean by the terms
1) "the whole complex of information"
2) “including the circumstances of that time”
3) “including the events of that time.”

[Redoubt]

Let me explain. For example, in the light of the discussion of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” a little higher you indicated such details as the Dnieper rapids and Ladoga canals. Of course, this circumstance, although not included in the chronicle, is accepted for the entire “complex of information” on the topic. How to interpret these details is another question. But nevertheless, these details and circumstances are taken into account.
By the entire “complex of information” we mean all historical disciplines. There are a lot of them. Archeology, numismatics, sphragistics, toponymy, genealogy, etc. Not only chronicles.
By “circumstances of that time” we mean geography, logistics, the state of the Russian principalities and their neighbors, the characters, the circumstances in which they were not only at that moment, but also before and after. Logic of intentions, logic of circumstances, etc., etc.
The events of that time mean the environment in which the history being discussed took place, details and events and their sequence. And this is taken not only from the chronicles. For example, nowhere in the chronicles about Kalka is the Pereyaslavl regiment and its prince indicated. But he could not help but be there based on the entire previous history of Rus', its geography and military tradition.

[cast iron]

The number of Russian troops in the article is greatly exaggerated. There could not have been more on Kalka than on the Kulikovo Field. There are 7 thousand warriors, maximum 10. Most are mounted. Even if there was infantry in the form of militia, it did not represent any force in the field.
Defeat is obvious. The Russian regiments did not have a single command and a strict hierarchy. Each prince led his squad as he wanted. This is typical for a feudal army. It was the same in Europe. The Russians' defensive weapons did not allow them to effectively withstand massive archery attacks. Chain mail provides very poor protection against arrows. Moreover, the horses were not protected at all. The Mongols did not engage in close combat until they stabbed all the Russian soldiers with arrows, constantly retreating and luring them further into the steppe. And the defeat was completed by the Mongol plate cavalry. By the way, the armor of the plate Mongols was better at that time. If the Russian princes mostly have chain mail, then the Mongols have mostly lamellar armor. They rarely used chain mail. In general, the Russian army had very little chance.

[Redoubt]

The classic superficial look from the series “stick a label on the folder with the topic and archive it.”

The number of Russian troops in the article is greatly exaggerated. There could not have been more on Kalka than on the Kulikovo Field.

...In this case, the Polovtsians would have conquered Rus' long ago. Or they would have imposed tribute like the Khazars.
According to the chronicles, only a thousand boats came from Galich. And as soon as Mstislav cut them down to escape pursuit... In addition, it is obvious that there were more Russians in the allied army than Polovtsians.

Most are mounted. Even if there was infantry in the form of militia, it did not represent any force in the field.

If you assume the infantry is useless, then why were they driven into the steppe? Guard the convoy?

Defeat is obvious

Defeat is not obvious. Already on the campaign, the Mongols did everything to get their chance, and the Russians did everything to impose their tactics on the Mongols. The Mongols had a chance. And this was not obvious initially. This is how post-knowledge works for us.
From the course of events it is clear that the Mongol tactics are to search for a chance, if there is no chance, a successful retreat. Russian tactics of ousting the Mongols from the steppe. At the same time, the Russians pursued political goals rather than military ones.

This is typical for a feudal army.

The feudal army is characterized by an order of formation by cities and principalities, which is noticeable in the Battle of Kalka. This order is justified and it is much better than building in discord. City regiments were known not only among feudal lords, but also in centralized states. The quality of the regiment was higher when people stood next to their own in battle.

The Russian regiments did not have a single command and a strict hierarchy. Each prince led his squad as he wanted

All the stories about the Russian regiments not having a single hierarchy and a single command are complete nonsense, invented retroactively for justification. The Russian feudal army of the time of Monomakh successfully marched into the steppe without any personal desires of their princes and their squads. More precisely, of course there were wishes, but the general authority of the congress silenced them. The very congress of princes in Kyiv and the gathering of the all-Russian army shows: there was no discord among the princes and there was a clear hierarchy. Even Suzdal sent troops to Kyiv, although it usually first of all expressed complaints about the hierarchy. The Kyiv and Galician Mstislavs always acted together. Their joint activities made it possible to unite Rus' at that time.

resist massive archery attacks.

Not only the Mongols, but also the Polovtsians and the Russians had bows and arrows.

Chain mail provides very poor protection against arrows.

Chain mail was made specifically against arrows. But only rich warriors had chain mail. But many had shields. Judging by the fact that several princes got out of the battle and the chase, including the elderly princes, the chain mail quite saved them.
Most of the soldiers died not in flight, but in a stampede at the crossing and after surrendering. The Mongols achieved this not with archers or massive shelling, but with a blow to the Russian vanguard and Polovtsians, who rolled back to a large Russian regiment crossing the river. The large regiment almost did not have time to enter the battle and was crushed by the flight of its own people to the camp at the crossing where Mstislav of Kiev stood with his army. By the way, the fact that the Mongols with their bows could not take this camp is also significant. Mstislav of Kyiv in his career had the experience of surrendering to the Polovtsians from which he ransomed. Unfortunately, he agreed this time too.
It is also characteristic that many princes who were in the advanced regiment were able to escape, unlike the princes who were in the Big Regiment and camp.

And the defeat was completed by the Mongol plate cavalry.

She didn't finish it. She started it. Overturning the vanguard of the Polovtsians and the Galician-Volyn regiment into a large Russian regiment.
The Mongols were planning to catch the enemy in an inconvenient place for him. Crossing the Kalka is the right place. The Mongols took full advantage of their chance.
This follows from what is written in the chronicles and also from what happened then and before.
For 10 days in a row, the Russians pursued the Mongols. Moreover, the Russians walked across the steppe in a raid, which is clear from the consequences of the battle in which there were not several Russian squads scattered across the steppe in the raid. Knowing very well the tactics of the nomads to lure the enemy, the Russians, and even more so the Polovtsy, who knew these tactics, went to the intersection of the steppe roads. There it is easiest to find out information about the enemy. Perhaps even the Russians hoped that the Mongols would attack them by stopping running. On the way to the crossroads of the roads from the Dnieper there is the Kalka River.
Every day, the leading Russian regiments rose up to the showing Mongol horsemen and tried to overtake them. A large regiment followed the Russian vanguard. Surely, during a 10-day hike, a peculiar habit has already developed: the enemy appears, we form up, we go out, the enemy runs away, we follow him further... . This was the case on the day of the battle. But it happened at the crossing, where the troops lined up in one column after learning about the next appearance of the enemy. The heavy Mongol cavalry struck the column crossing the river head-on. What follows is logical... Exactly the same tactics were used by Dmitry Donskoy on the Vozha River, hitting the Tatar crossing column head-on with heavy cavalry.
At the same time, the Russians on Kalka were not careless. Before the battle, they built a camp above the river, which the Mongols were never able to take either with their archers or their heavy cavalry. The Russians conducted reconnaissance and managed to form up and even let the Polovtsians go forward..
The Mongols just got and used their chance. If they had openly attacked the Russians and Polovtsians in the steppe, the Mongols would have had no chance. In turn, the Russians were counting on this.

[cast iron]

“In this case, the Polovtsians would have conquered Rus' long ago. Or they would have imposed tribute like the Khazars.”

Where did you get the idea that there were tens of thousands of Polovtsians?

“According to the chronicles, only a thousand boats came from Galich.”

Chronicles are a narrative source. The numbers were often taken from the bullshit. Yes, even if there are several hundred boats, this does not mean that they were filled to the brim with people.

“If you assume the infantry is useless, then why did they drive it into the steppe? To guard the convoy?”

I'm not suggesting that infantry was useless in the 11th to 13th centuries - it was. Historical fact. There were no structures capable of drilling phalanxes of spearmen on the parade ground for years. The Romans or Greeks could afford this in their heyday. In poor and hungry medieval Europe, and especially in even poorer Rus', there were no such opportunities. A small foot militia can do nothing against mounted warriors in the field. NOTHING. It is a fact. The presence of infantry in the battle at Kalka is unknown. Most likely there were some detachments, because someone built a military camp for the Kyiv prince. It was not only the boyars and their warriors who cut logs and dug a ditch.

"and the Russians did everything to impose their tactics on the Mongols."

What kind of tactic is this? When did some of the princes rush into attack and pursuit, laying waste to the rest of the army? Great tactic. Reliable like a Swiss watch. By the way, the French did similar garbage at the Battle of Crecy. The result is similar - complete defeat. It was necessary to change our tactics at the crossing, not attacking part of the army without reconnaissance.

"Russian tactics of ousting the Mongols from the steppe."

Yes, yes, displacement with the simultaneous entry of the entire army into the steppe. And this is when your army has at least half, or even more, of heavy spear warriors? A knight will never be able to cope with steppe dwellers in the steppe. They'll just run away. Take a rest and come back - shoot with a bow. What did the Russian princes count on? That the Mongols will run away? Maybe. Only the intelligence failed because the enemy was a large army, and not several detachments of steppe robbers.

“All the stories about the Russian regiments not having a single hierarchy and a single command are complete nonsense, invented after the fact to justify it.”

This is not nonsense. This is a historical fact and a phenomenon characteristic of the feudal combined armies of that period. This happened to ALL European feudal armies.

"The general authority of the congress silenced them."

Now we see the “authority” of the Kyiv prince, when Mstislav Udatny, putting his device on the “authority” of the “commander-in-chief”, rode off to attack with a third of his troops straight into the Mongols’ trap.

“Not only the Mongols had bows and arrows, but also the Polovtsians. And the Russians.”

There were not enough Polovtsians to compete on equal terms in a firefight with the Mongols. And the Russian warriors had even fewer bows - a statistical error. Russian wars of the 13th century were mostly fought in the chivalrous European manner. This is a historical fact.

"The chain mail was made specifically against arrows."

I won't even comment on this. Doesn't stand up to any criticism.

“The Mongols achieved this not with archers or massive shelling, but with a blow to the Russian vanguard and Polovtsians, who rolled back to a large Russian regiment crossing the river.”

I wrote about this. That the archers lured them into a trap and crushed the Russians and Polovtsians with their bows. And when they got tired, lost attention and orientation, they struck with spears. The vanguard that ran crushed the following units and disoriented them, which made it possible to strike at the crossing. But the Polovtsians were much smaller than the Mongols and they could not compete on equal terms in the firefight.

“By the way, the fact that the Mongols with their bows could not take this camp is also significant.”

It is significant that Subedei and Jebe did not take any siege engines or “engineer troops” on their campaign. They did not have the task of storming cities and fortresses. This was a reconnaissance campaign of the cavalry army - to rob, make noise and, most importantly, obtain information about the surrounding countries and peoples. And 20 years later the Mongols came with all branches of the army. And with siege engines too. And they took all the cities and camps on their way. Historical fact. A cavalry army, 80% consisting of lightly protected archers, will not storm field fortifications for days. We waited until the water in the camp ran out and that was it.

“It is also characteristic that many princes who were in the advanced regiment were able to escape, unlike the princes who were in the Big Regiment and camp.”

With the general turmoil, anything can happen. This is exactly what happened that time. And the fact that the noble princes were able to get out of the trap suggests that they had the best expensive armor and the best horses.

[Seal]

Quote: Dzungar

And tens and hundreds are for backward peoples.. Bgggggg..!

Well, as I expected, nothing but obvious nonsense will be answered in response to my comment. But not everything is as simple as it seems to the nicknames “Dzungar”, “Redoubt” and others, including “caliber”, who also spoke about tens, hundreds and “tumens”, considering tumzhn equal to 10.
But let's take a real Mongolian document, the Code of Altan Khan - a Mongolian legal monument of the second half of the 16th century
http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Mongol/Ulozenije_altan_chana/frametext.htm
(translated by R. Yu. Pochekaeva)
The text is reproduced according to the publication: Code of Altan-Khan - a Mongolian legal monument of the second half of the 1th century // Jurisprudence, No. 2011. XNUMX
and we never find tens:

2 Murder Cases
1) If one kills the other, he should thrice flog, take nine and one person instead of the one killed; or take one five and a person instead of the killed one. If the parties come to an agreement, it is enough to give one person instead of the killed one.
2) The aforementioned nine consists of two horses, two oxen and five sheep and goats (the total number is nine heads of cattle).
3) The five consists of an ox, a horse, and three sheep and goats to boot.
5) If someone is killed in the process of good faith interaction, then the culprit should be flogged, take nine nines from him and one person instead of the one killed. Anyone who did not personally take part in the murder of such a person should not be flogged, but nine nines and a person or camel in place of the killed person should also be taken from him.
6) If a father or mother kills a teenage child, then he should be flogged and taken from him nine nines. If these are adoptive parents, then take four nines from them and, on top of that, a camel.
7) If someone causes death as a result of arson, take from him three nines and a man or a camel in return; if the victim’s arms and legs are burned, then take two nines from the arsonist; if the face is burned - five nines.
8) If someone commits arson maliciously or with grave consequences, he should be flogged and taken from him nine nines.
9) If a madman kills someone, take it from him nine and one camel as compensation. If someone catches a madman and puts him in chains, give him a horse.
3. Cases of grievous bodily harm
11) If one blinds the other, he should be flogged, take nine nines from him and a man or a camel in return.
12) If one knocks out another’s teeth, take it from him three nines and a man or camel in return.
13) If one hits the other with a blade, a sharp tool, a stone or a piece of wood, take from him a nine, including a horse or camel.
4. Theft cases
21) If someone steals property, a horse or a cow, take one person from him and wtraffic nine nines.
22) If someone performs castration, [take] three nines. If the male is castrated at the request of [the owner (?) – R. P.], do not take a fine; otherwise - five nines. For stallions, camels, bulls, sheep or goats [take] three nines.
23) If someone steals a mare’s mane, [take] nine, if the tail - three nines. If the cow's tail is five nines.
28) If someone steals provisions from soldiers during a campaign, [take] three nines.
38) For the saddle - six nines, for the stirrups, etc. - the horse, [for] the saddle pad (?) - three nines.
39) If someone steals a falcon, lamb, bearded vulture or vulture, take it two nines.
40) For golden bowls, golden caps and silver bowls - six nines and give the person as compensation.
45) For crossbow traps, knife traps and bird snares - five.
48) If a thief shoots an arrow at someone, take it from him nine nines, regardless of whether he hit or not, and also take a man or a camel from him as compensation.
49) If someone took something from stolen food, take a five.
50) Take the copper (brass) bowl two nines, for [three-part] fetters - two sheep. If the fetters belong to the messenger, 63 take the horse. For a copper (brass) saddle - two nines. For a silver collar - three nines. For a copper collar - one nine.
51) For the felt roof or felt wall of the yurt - three nines; for a felt from the smoke hole of the yurt - one nine.
5. Cases on matrimonial relations
53) If a pregnant woman has a miscarriage, take as much from the culprit nines, how many months was the child.

And so on and so forth. That is, even in the 16th century, the Mongols counted nines, not tens. Sometimes using "fives" too.
Here so

[Seal]

Quote: Redoubt

By the entire “complex of information” we mean all historical disciplines. There are a lot of them. Archeology, numismatics, sphragistics, toponymy, genealogy, etc. Not only chronicles.

The only problem is that none of the disciplines you listed is primary in relation to the non-scientific discipline of History. They all depend on an already formed version of History.

Quote: Redoubt

By “circumstances of that time” we mean geography, logistics, the state of the Russian principalities and their neighbors, the characters, the circumstances in which they were not only at that moment, but also before and after. Logic of intentions, logic of circumstances, etc., etc.

Amazing. But where do you personally get these “at that time” geography, logistics, the state of the Russian principalities and their neighbors, characters, and so on, if not from chronicles, legends and all sorts of later fiction?

Quote: Redoubt

The events of that time mean the environment in which the history being discussed took place, details and events and their sequence. And this is taken not only from the chronicles. For example, nowhere in the chronicles about Kalka is the Pereyaslavl regiment and its prince indicated. But he could not help but be there based on the entire previous history of Rus', its geography and military tradition.

Amazing. If not from the chronicles, but please tell me, where else? Oh yes, you answered me that everything that is missing by you (historians in principle) is taken from your head. You know, you weren't the first to come up with this. This is a well-known method of the English writer on history Edward Gibbon, who believed that for a writer on history who is deeply immersed in History (that is, for a historian in our opinion), 10% of the texture is enough, and the remaining 90% the historian has the right to think out himself, based on on his conviction, how it once could have been.
The problem is not only that E. Gibbon officially admits that the invoice can only be 10%. The problem is also what exactly this “texture” is. This same E. Gibbon managed to write the history of the Roman Empire, without any genuine texture at all, that is, without having a single authentic document of that very Roman Empire, even in scraps.

But there is another opinion.
The positivist paradigm in source studies is most consistently developed in the work of Sh.-V. Langlois and C. Segnobos "Introduction to the Study of History" (1898), which is based on a course of lectures they delivered at the Sorbonne in the 1896/97 academic year. Sh.-V. Langlois (1863-1929) - medievalist historian, professor at the Sorbonne, holder of a diploma from the National School of Charters, director of the National Archives (1912-1929), member (since 1917), then president (since 1925) of the Academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres . C. Segnobos (1854–1942) – professor at the Sorbonne (1890), began his research activity with the study of ancient and medieval history, later specialized in modern history, author of the work “Political History of Modern Europe” (1897).
"Introduction to the Study of History" begins with a formula that over time has become an aphorism:
History is written according to documents. Documents are traces left by the thoughts and actions of people who once lived <…>. Every thought and every deed that has not left a direct or indirect trace, or whose visible trace has disappeared, is forever lost to history, as if it had never existed <…>. Nothing can replace documents: there are none, there is no history

[Seal]

Quote: Redoubt

After the fall of Byzantium in 1204. All preferences for Russian merchants and all agreements concluded with them were cancelled.

Show a photocopy of at least one contract.

Quote: Redoubt

Of course it is dangerous, but this does not mean that there was no trade. It paid off despite the dangers.

And what is this idea of ​​yours based on? Did they take it out of your head again? Listen, do you have at least some kind of statistical base? For example, what was the cost of such and such a product at point “A” at that time, from where it needs to be transported to point “Z”, through points “B”; "IN" . "D" and so on. The cost of goods at point “A” is such and such, the selling price at point Z is such and such, the costs along the way are such and such. Will you ever begin to confirm your calculations with documents or will everything just be out of your head?

Quote: Redoubt

The Russians managed to come to an agreement with the Polovtsians. And the Polovtsians agreed with the Alans, as evidenced by their alliances (Polovtsian khans with princes, Alans with Polovtsians). Look how different these peoples are in life, but nevertheless they were able to ally when it was beneficial.

Let me better look at the contracts themselves. As I assume, you have photocopies of the agreements between our princes and the Polovtsians, since you write about them so confidently.